Panel has no applause for Clapper

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

Leaders of the committee including Chairman Dianne Feinstein worry that James Clapper's background will make him beholden to the military.
John Shinkle

Though the comments from Feinstein and Bond got the hearing off to a gloomy start for Clapper, the committee’s rank-and-file members were somewhat friendlier toward the nominee. Indeed, by the conclusion of the session, most members were treating Clapper’s confirmation as a fait accompli.

Bond also faulted Clapper for sending the Armed Services Committee a memo earlier this year, criticizing aspects of a pending intelligence authorization bill without sending the memo to the intelligence panel that drafted the legislation.

“Too much of your previous contact with this committee has been too reluctant and reactive,” Bond complained.

“In retrospect, it would have been better had I seen to it that a copy of that went to the respective intelligence committees. That happened anyway, at the speed of light, without my taking any action,” Clapper said.

When Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) asked Clapper whether he might run into difficulty exerting authority over the Pentagon’s intelligence operations, Clapper colorfully said he doubted that, given that is his present job.

“I don’t anticipate a problem there. I know the Department of Defense pretty well,” Clapper said. “Having run two agencies in DoD, having served as the services’ intel chief will help empower me. ... I’ve been there, done that, got the T-shirt.”

The timing of Clapper’s confirmation hearing, on the second day of a weeklong Washington Post series about the proliferation of contractors in the world of national security and intelligence, also prompted questions about contracting sprawl.

Clapper pushed back against many of the conclusions of the series, including claims that no one knows how many contractors there are or how much is being spent on them.

“The statement implies this is completely out of control, and I believe it is under control,” Clapper said. “The common denominator in all this is the money that is appropriated. … In the intelligence community, we can do anything. But printing more money is one thing we cannot do and that does serve, I think, as a means of control over allegedly profligate intelligence activities.”

Clapper said some of the work the Post portrayed as duplicative may have been part of a sensible effort to get multiple perspectives on thorny questions. “One man’s duplication is another man’s competitive analysis,” he observed.

Clapper also suggested that aspects of the report had been hyped by one of its co-authors, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Dana Priest.

“There was some breathless [aspect] and shrillness to it that I don’t subscribe to,” the nominee said. “She’s striven for a bit of sensationalism here.”

While some senators have advocated for revising the laws to increase the DNI’s authority, Clapper said he doesn’t believe that is necessary.

“I am in the mode of making the model we have work, rather than going through the trauma of another reorganization,” he said.

Clapper did suggest that it would be helpful to intelligence officials if parallel committees in the House and the Senate had similar authority over budget and programs.

“It would be better if the oversight were symmetrical,” he said.

“You have entered into the most deadly minefield in Washington, D.C., so step carefully. But we appreciate your taking that step,” said Bond, whose intelligence committee has spent years unsuccessfully seeking control of spy agency budgets.

Readers' Comments (2)

Cooperation and coordination, not the allegedly persistent turf battles of the past is necessary. My worry is like the previous 3 directions "requests for direct reporting lines" will not be honored.

The IC like the Regulatory Agencies need a reform minded CEO, regardless of background, who can restructure, and cut where things are not working and invest and grow where things are working. In addition, Congress should reform their committee structure - the voluminous and complex web of committees and sub-committees is inhibiting legitimate reform, even when the reluctant Washington wants to genuinely get something done.

If I were on the committtee, I would interview Director Penetta, and Secretary Napolitano for their view. A structure I saw where all agencies filter information to the NCTC and then to the dni, and afterward to the President is bureacracy at is worst. This is not "smaller, faster, stronger". It is a recipe for disaster.